Latest news with #UKSecurity
The Sun
3 days ago
- Business
- The Sun
UK's plan for Arctic island base: How Boris was urged to buy £250m stretch to fend off Putin years BEFORE Ukraine crisis
A REMOTE Arctic base which would have bolstered British strength in the region whilst fending off Putin years before he invaded Ukraine was nearly bought by Boris Johnson. The bombshell revelation was made by a former minister who said he urged his old boss Johnson to purchase a key stretch of Norwegian land in the Arctic when it was on sale for £250million. 10 10 10 10 Tobias Ellwood told The i Paper that he encouraged the then Foreign Secretary Johnson to make a bid for land in the Svalbard archipelago in 2016 to improve influence and security in the region. The revelation comes amid spiralling concern over Russia 's soaring presence in the ever more important Arctic. Experts have named the High North as a crucial flashpoint for future worldwide conflicts with nations set to battle for territory there. Donald Trump has made attempts to increase US presence there, threatening to take the Danish territory of Greenland " one way or another". And Ellwood said the Arctic was a "huge issue, and one that for a long time has been recognised as an area where European, and British particularly, security, could be vulnerable". The UK has also made recent attempts to curb Russian strength there, especially after scheming Vladimir Putin positioned troops on the border of NATO member Finland earlier this month. On Tuesday, the Foreign Office announced sanctions interrupting the journey of the Vengery tugboat. The Vengery was set to tow a colossal 200-metre-long floating dock, designed to help Russia repair its nuclear-powered ice-breakers. These specialised machines are necessary for carving safe passages through frozen Arctic waters. The UK also renewed an "ambitious new UK-Norway defence agreement" and pledged to leverage AI to "detect hostile state activity in the Arctic". And Foreign Secretary David Lammy began a visit of Norway and Iceland on Tuesday - Britain's two nearest Arctic neighbours. Putin's chilling Arctic war warning as tensions rise over US Greenland stance He told The Telegraph: "The Arctic is fast becoming an area of intense focus for geopolitical competition – and a key flank of NATO's defences. "Russia has been building up its military presence here for years." The visit also came as British troops are actively training in Norway as part of a broader NATO effort to deter mad Vlad. Some 90,000 troops are taking part in Exercise Steadfast Defender to rehearse NATO's response to a Russian invasion. The new revelation that Johnson nearly bought a remote Arctic base in 2016 detailed why the Government failed to acquire Austre Adventfjord. The small Norwegian stretch of land sits across the fjord from the Svalbard town of Longyearbyen. It was put on sale by the Norwegian Horn family in 2016. Ellwood said: "[Arctic security] came up when Boris Johnson was foreign secretary, and I was foreign minister, and I tried to get him to buy a bit of Svalbard. "Svalbard is a group of islands and they're quite strategically important." He explained: "We were ahead of our time and [got] pushed back by [the] Civil Service and others." Ellwood highlighted how it would 'certainly have been useful to have assets there, to monitor traffic'. 10 10 10 They also planned to operate satellites there to track the threat of Putin. The former minister highlighted why it would have been a great advantage to have bought the territory in hindsight. He said: "For different reasons, it made sense for us to establish a base there, and sadly, it was never to be. "Norway is a close ally, there's no doubt about it, but this was a wonderful opportunity, which sadly we did miss. Ellwood continued: "This is exactly why Trump wants to buy Greenland, because the growing disorder we're seeing is seeing every country defend their immediate surrounds." Austre Adventfjord had also received interest from a Chinese billionaire when the Horn family put in on sale in 2016. But it was quickly snapped up by the Norwegian state for £21million, possibly due to the security threat a Chinese-owned territory could pose there. The Foreign Office did not deny that discussions had taken place over Ellwood's recommendation to Johnson and the Foreign Office in 2016. Another separate Svalbard island also came up for sale in 2024 - but a Foreign Office source confirmed there were no discussions of purchasing it. It is understood that the current Government believes any territory purchased there now would not give the UK a strategic advantage due to the Svalbard Treaty, which restricts military use of the land. However, the chair of the UK Space Agency said Svalbard is already 'one of the most active centres for the collection of satellite data anywhere in the world and an intense scene of strategic competition'. Additionally, European security expert Ed Arnold said that purchasing land in Svalbard would make the UK an Arctic state. This title would boost diplomatic prominence in the region and provide an argument for the UK to join the Arctic Council. Seven of the current eight Arctic Council members are NATO allies, excluding Russia. Ellwood emphasised the importance of Arctic presence, saying: "The significance of the Arctic is all the more important because of the melting ice caps. "It's going to become ever busier… Because this is new and unfolding, Russia has been quick to plant flags in the sea, making territorial claims." He added: "Ultimately, this is testing NATO, because it's a new geographical domain we've not really got our heads around. "Russia is advancing at an incredible rate of knots and therefore there's a greater responsibility to hold Russia in check, not just in Ukraine, not just on the Finnish border, but also at sea as well." The former minister highlighted Russia's long-lasting attempts to seek influence in the region. "The Russians prioritised the Arctic from the 2010s and really, NATO sort of de-prioritised it after the Cold War," he said. "It noticed what Russia was doing, but didn't really respond to it, because they don't want to provoke Russia." It comes as Vladimir Putin continues to invest heavily in his prized Northern Fleet. The Russian tyrant now possesses 18 nuclear-powered submarines and warships equipped with hypersonic missiles. He has also as Moscow increases its risk appetite in the Arctic, given its already strained relationship with NATO countries. It also comes as Trump is continuing efforts the take the autonomous Arctic island of Greenland, pressing to acquire it either through purchase or military force. The President said the US 'needs Greenland for international security ', but also emphasised the potential benefits of mining natural resources across the island. 10 10
BBC News
22-05-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
Why did the government sign the Chagos deal now?
In a fast-moving world, suffused by conflict and political uncertainty, it might seem odd for the UK government to surrender sovereign British territory in a distant the government's critics go further and say the decision to give up a key strategic foothold in the Indian Ocean is a dangerous weakening of UK why has the government handed the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, a nation some thousand miles away?The answer has a legal origin and a practical conclusion. It all focuses on the joint UK-US military base on the biggest island in the archipelago, Diego Garcia. The government felt that without ceding sovereignty to Mauritius, the operation of the base would become unworkable and that would pose a greater threat to UK Secretary John Healey told MPs that "without this deal, within weeks, we could face losing legal rulings and within just a few years the base would become inoperable".The putative legal challenge is based on a series of judgements by various United Nations bodies that the Chagos Islands belong to Mauritius. Essentially, they argued the UK had no legal right to separate the islands from Mauritius before the former British colony became independent in the 1960s. There were votes to that effect in the UN General Assembly. But then in 2019 there was an "advisory opinion" by the UN's International Court of Justice backed up by a later ruling of the Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the feared these rulings and opinions would soon become a legally binding judgement by this UN pressure in the House of Commons to identify the source of this legal threat, Healey said: "There's a range of international legal challenges and rulings against us. "The most proximate, the most potentially serious, is the tribunal of the International Convention of the Sea."If the government lost a case there, ministers argue, the outside world would be obliged - by law - to take decisions that would interfere in the running of the base. So they argue Diego Garcia's satellite communications would be threatened because the UK relies on a UN authority in Geneva to get access to a particular electromagnetic spectrum. They say contractors would refuse to visit the isolated base - to make repairs or deliver supplies - for fear of being sued by Mauritius. The ability to fly aircraft in and out might be challenged by international rules that govern our government's critics – which include Conservative and Reform MPs, some foreign diplomats and even a few officials within Whitehall – challenge this argument and say the legal threat is being exaggerated. They accuse ministers of being overly submissive to international lawyers and craven to politically motivated votes at the UN. Shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge told MPs the government was "following the legal advice to act definitively to our detriment, entirely on the basis of hypothetical risk that has not yet materialised and which we could challenge". Blocking bases The government's second argument is that without a deal, China would get a toehold in the islands. Officials say that in the absence of an agreement, there would be no legal ban preventing Mauritius allowing a foreign power to establish a military or other presence in the islands. Under the terms of the deal, the UK can effectively veto that happening. The UK claims that without the deal, it would have no alternative but to threaten military force if China tried to set up a military facility on one of the islands. Officials also argue that Mauritius, by being paid rent for the islands, has no financial incentive to open them up to Chinese government's critics counter that for all these safeguards, the Mauritian government may well nonetheless still develop closer ties with China – and possibly even Russia. Reputation on trial The government's broader argument is diplomatic. For years the UK has been accused by friend and foe alike of hypocrisy; for making the case for international law on the world stage but ignoring it with regard to the Chagos islands. How could the UK criticise Russia for breaking international law in Ukraine and China in the South China Sea if it was itself breaking the rules in the Indian Ocean?Ministers also argued that at a time of geopolitical uncertainty, when old allies were less reliable and new partnerships had to be formed, the Chagos row was a diplomatic boil than needed to be lanced. It was notable the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres issued a statement welcoming the deal, saying it demonstrated "the value of diplomacy in addressing historical grievances".Again, the government's critics dispute this conclusion, arguing the world has changed, and that we live in a time when "might is right" and close adherence to the fine print of international law is outdated and a geopolitical indulgence. Would US President Donald Trump or French President Emmanuel Macron, they ask, give up territories overseas?The government's response to that challenge is to say that the US - which largely runs and pays for Diego Garcia - now supports the deal with Mauritius, despite earlier doubts. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said "following a comprehensive inter-agency review, the Trump Administration determined that this agreement secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint US-UK military facility at Diego Garcia".Other members of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance also back the agreement; the base is a huge hub for the exchange of global signals intelligence. These issues will now be tested in Parliament as MPs consider whether to ratify the agreement. The government may win the vote because of its majority. But it has yet to win the argument. Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.
